Skip to main content
Glama

Lovie Company Formation

by co.lovie
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update Cap Table Stakeholder

cap_table_update_cap_table_stakeholder

Edits an EXISTING stakeholder's identity (name, type, email, metadata) by id. FULL REPLACE; type is effectively immutable. To ADD a new stakeholder use CreateCapTableStakeholder; for an investor contributing capital use RecordCapTableInvestment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stakeholderYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / stakeholder / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED",
-  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_FOUNDER",
-  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_INVESTOR",
-  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_EMPLOYEE",
-  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_ADVISOR",
-  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_ENTITY"
-]New value: +[
+  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_FOUNDER",
+  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_INVESTOR",
+  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_EMPLOYEE",
+  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_ADVISOR",
+  "CAP_TABLE_STAKEHOLDER_TYPE_ENTITY"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / stakeholder / properties / address
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / stakeholder / properties / title
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 100,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and not open world (openWorldHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a FULL REPLACE operation (meaning provided fields replace existing ones entirely) and that type is effectively immutable. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies side effects of the operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by routing to alternatives. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent scanning for tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a complex nested schema and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the essential operational details: it edits an existing stakeholder, is a full replace, type is immutable, and it names the alternatives. It doesn't explicitly clarify that the id is nested within the stakeholder object, but given the schema is available, the agent can infer this. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It identifies key parameters (name, type, email, metadata) and explains that the operation is a full replace, clarifying that these are update fields rather than filters. It also mentions 'by id' which signals the id's role. Though it doesn't fully map the nested structure, it adds meaning that the schema alone doesn't convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Edits'), a specific resource ('EXISTING stakeholder's identity'), and a scope ('by id'). It clearly names the fields affected (name, type, email, metadata) and distinguishes it from CreateCapTableStakeholder (for adding) and RecordCapTableInvestment (for capital contributions). This makes it unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (editing an existing stakeholder) and provides clear exclusions: use CreateCapTableStakeholder to add a new stakeholder and RecordCapTableInvestment for investor capital contributions. This gives the agent explicit routing guidance with no ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Lovie Company Formation toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources